Jon Irenicus:How about, I am ignoring them because they're either a) not great minds or b) full of shit or perhaps both? How about I am not wont to give in to stupid, anachronistic, superstitious authoritarianism banning the practice of charging interest? Look, I do not want to live in an economy without interest. Find someone who does and cares and stop wasting our time with stuff you've posted over and over. Interest exists without money, so what you say about money being our "god" just evidences how clueless you are. If people want to engage in interest-free, "scrip-based" economices I do not care. Let them. Just leave me out of it.
I assume you think you are a great mind because otherwise you think you can make a sophisticated guess about who are and who are not. If you do not believe in God that is fine with me, and all the other things you think I do not care. Interest definitely exists without money, because of the existence of productive capital. Money is not productive and therefore, money should not earn interest. Interest is associated with productivity.
Too bad that's nonsense, and that the "therefore" isnt one at all.
I assume you think you are a great mind because otherwise you think you can make a sophisticated guess about who are and who are not.
Certainly greater than either Einstein or Keynes when it comes to economics.
Money is not productive and therefore, money should not earn interest. Interest is associated with productivity.
Interest is associated with time preference and nothing more. Money is merely a medium of exchange, a remedy for the lack of a double coincidence of wants and a remedy for uncertainty in virtue of its wide acceptance. Interest earned is in terms of money, not "on money"; might as well earn interest on wheat (or any good) lent out and then exchange it for money, as this is exactly what happens with money anyway, irrespective of whether it is in that particular order or not.
To darkness I condemn you...
niphtrique: Interest is of course highly debated because people do not like the idea of God wanting something they do not want. So they try to change definitions. Usury definitely was defined as the charging of interest (and not excessive interest). However people do not like that idea because they think they have the right to something (be it interest, gay marriage or social benefits).
Interest is of course highly debated because people do not like the idea of God wanting something they do not want. So they try to change definitions. Usury definitely was defined as the charging of interest (and not excessive interest). However people do not like that idea because they think they have the right to something (be it interest, gay marriage or social benefits).
Even if you take that position you have to explain why usury was allowed to be charged to non-Jews in the OT. Further why the forbidding of interest carries forward into the NT with the locus of the kingdom of God not being a piece of land with the Israelites but in Church.
I assume you'll ignore Hulsmann.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
sapSUCKER:Someone set us up the bomb.
Correction: "someone set up us the bomb" :)
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
Here is something to think about:
If someone brought a 1/10 oz gold coin to the bank in the year 1 AD, and the money remained there until the year 2000 AD, collecting a yearly interest of 4%, the amount of gold in the account would have been 3.6 * 10^31 kilograms of gold. This is 1.9 * 10^27 cubic metres of gold weighing 317 times the complete mass of the Earth.
Interest on money is not sustainable. It will lead to economic collapse or the devaluation of the money unit. If you have the ability to see long term, you may see that interest on money needs constant growth which is not possible.
Rome lasted only 700 years. The money system was based on gold and silver. In the beginning Rome was able to expand, and therefore capital could grow faster than interest charges. But after 400 years the expansion was over, and slowly growing debt was becoming a drag on the economy. The government was permanently short of funds. The value of money was constantly devaluated. The military was also badly funded, and therefore other people could invade Roman lands. Debt was destroying Rome.
However the corn receipt money system in Egypt lasted more than 1,500 years without Egypt needing to expand.
you have missed the point. I suppose you have made this a lifetime habit. good luck to you.
you will need plenty of it.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap